So, once Iran successfully concentrates U-235, what’s to stop them from giving 50 lbs of the stuff to al qaeda? They have plausible deniability, since they could blame Pakistan, N. Korea, or even Russia for supplying the material. Once they share the technology with other muslim countries, the list of possible suppliers would be large enough that it would be impossible to lay blame specifically on Iran.

What could we do if nuclear bombs start going off on the Jordan/Israeli border, set off by truck driving suicide bomber? How about some US port? Can we attack Iran?

Probably not. Truthers would think the government did it. Liberals would say we deserved to get bombed for some liberal reason or another, and that we shouldn’t respond because violence begets violence. There is serious incentive for Iran to share the stuff with al qaeda. Hurt the US, remove Israel, maybe blow some Russians up in the hopes of grabbing Chechnya… the list is long. What is their incentive NOT to share it? And what would al qaeda’s incentive not to set one off be?

London top cop: Al Qaeda a bigger threat to civilians than the Nazis

Quick, Jane Skinner, say that 5 times fast!

First, thanks for the compliment. But second, I don’t really understand where your criticism is coming from. I generally agree with you that N. Korea’s nuclear program is very alarming and the possibilty that they would sell nuclear technology is very real. I would think Kim jong-Il realizes that if a nuke was detonated on U.S. soil that was traced back to him, both he and he country would cease to exsist and this would deter him somewhat. Although he is one world leader who is legitamitly insane so it’s hard to know what would deter him.

I don’t know where you get this notion that I want to play Russian Roulette with a bomb though. Nothing in my post would suggest that and I am in full support of preventing nuclear weapons from being developed by any country and I believe we need to do everything possible to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Are you just generalizing and telling me what I believe based on your liberal stereotypes? Let me assure you I have no suicide wish and am very happy with life.

I think they key word in your statement is if. If jihadists get their hands on one or more nukes then of course they pose a greater threat to civilians than the Nazis. That is a big if though, and hopefully one that will never happen.

Even though you are without a doubt one of the MOST reprehensible trolls that frequents this site (had to get that dig in), I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you. The MOST alarming development in recent days is North Korea going nuclear. Kim Jong Il’s people are starving. Industrialized nations have imposed sanctions. That bastard desperately needs money. Bin Laden and his family HAVE money. Lots of money. Enough to buy a nuke from a tin-palted dictator with delusions of God-hood? You betcha.’ Would the North Koreans hesitate to sell one? Nope. Would Bin Laden hesitate to use one? Nope.

Maybe you are a gambler at heart. Maybe it doesn’t bother you to play a game of “Russion roulette.” That’s not me. I don’t like it one bit — and I think that it is TOTALLY unfair and egregious for you and your ilk to drag the rest of us into your little game of suicide. ‘Nuff said.

Could they be if left unchecked? Well sure! Are they worse today than the actual Nazis were? Not even close, thank God and the U.S. Military. And thank George Bush too; doubting that anyone here has done that in a while.

Of course, if they are ever capable of delivering and detonating a nuclear device at their will; they will easily reach the 6 million mark with only a few attacks. The whole damn point is to stop all this NOW before it ever gets to that point. That is why striking first and striking effectively is so important.

I could not DISAGREE with you more, Allah. If the Jihadists get their grimy little hands on nukes, they can both “catch-up” and “surpass” the atrocities committed by the Nazis in a single day of earthly time. It

I think they key word in your statement is if. If jihadists get their hands on one or more nukes then of course they pose a greater threat to civilians than the Nazis. That is a big if though, and hopefully one that will never happen.

As of right now though, al-Queda does not pose nearly as big of threat as the Nazi’s did. They are unorganized and poorly equipped whereas the Nazi’s were super-organized and equiped with the best technology in the world. A nuclear weapon would change everything, but until then, no.

As den Beste theorized, if they get a nuclear weapon which is easily replicated we will have no choice but to threaten their destruction or surrender. We would have to seize every possible source of Jihadi nuclear material. Since we could not do this without their consent, our military could not fight that many wars, our only choice would be the threat of nuclear annihilation. And we would have do it. Otherwise, we would slowly die as they picked off our cities.

The police chief is right. The jihadis are every bit as malevolent as Hitler and lacking only the means which they seem to be rapidly gathering.

Really? Bigger than a regime that inflicted 43,000 deaths on his own city and pioneered death factories for quick-n-easy genocide?
I appreciate the need to impress upon people the seriousness of the threat, but this comparison does neither him nor us any favors. At least at this point.

I could not DISAGREE with you more, Allah. If the Jihadists get their grimy little hands on nukes, they can both “catch-up” and “surpass” the atrocities committed by the Nazis in a single day of earthly time. It has taken them almost 4 years to kill 3000+ U.S. soldiers (by conventional means). Need I remind you that it only took a matter of minutes to kill an equal number of our civilians on 9/11 when our guard was down and they had the element of surprise. You can bet your bippy, that if they get their hands on nuclear weapons, they WON’T be using them against our soldiers — they’ll be using them against you and me, right here in our urban metropolitan enclaves. ‘Nuff said.

It has often been said that a single French division, sent in when Hitler militarized the Rheinland in violation of Versailles, would have forced him to back down, most likely without a single shot having been fired. The threat of what the Nazis could eventually do was real on that day, provided that one had the long-term thinking of a Winston Churchill to perceive that threat.

The biggest way that the jihadis are a bigger threat than the Nazis is that the latter had a chain of command, and after Hitler offed himself, Reichspräsident Karl Dönitz was able to order Alfred Jodl to surrender to the Allies, and the troops followed orders. From the jihadi perspective, Anwar Sadat ‘surrendered to the Zionist Entity’ by making peace with Israel, and we all know how well that worked out for him. If Osama bin Laden were to sign a treaty of peace, plenty of his ‘troops’ would say that the Jooooz got to him, and keep on blowing people up.

Al Qaeda a bigger threat to civilians than the Nazis.

It may aleady be as big a threat if not bigger. What Brit or American doesn’t think about the threat of terror daily? Is it over 400 million? Over a billion people daily worry about this threat. DAILY.

The last thing I want to do is NOT take a top cop from London at his word. When do we start to listen and believe folks?
Thats the libs job.
I for one, will back the guy from London with the gumballs to say it outloud.

However, that’s just me, and I may be wrong.

Technically, he might be correct. Practically, he’s overstating things.

I don’t know how you convince regular Joes how a pull out would be horrible beyond imagination.